You are here

TOTW: Anarchist by Any Other Name

Posted on:12 February 2018

By:thecollective

There is a tension between people who don't/would never call themselves anarchist but agree with (some) anarchist principles, and people who own the label. Projects like Crimethinc have perfected (?) the naming of things as anarchist, when some would call those things simple human behavior (like, making and eating meals with friends, etc). Obviously the main point of this sort of practice is to de-mystify anarchy and anarchists, to put the bomb-throwing in a larger, less scary context, or to negate the scary bits altogether.
Part of the point of anarchy is that it is in fact normal behavior in some ways for people, so is that the interesting part of it for you?
When have you opted to make anarchy sound friendly? When has it worked better to keep it scary? Which do you tend towards? Who is the biggest non-anarchist influence on your anarchy? (I think mine was Bertrand Russell, but it's been a long time.)

Comments

I've grown to love how anarchism appears terrifying when viewed from afar: the large black bloc at full peacock posture, the caricature of the bomb-hurling madman foaming at the mouth, the sex appeal of mystified illegalism, that moment when a much younger you realized that all your new, sarcastic friends are discretely strapped with knives and worse. Many of them are battling addictions and mental health issues. Some of them tend to project hostility on to random people (like you) as well as the rest of society but the good news is you're not a total coward so you stick around anyway!

Then time passes and you're not a clueless kid or a snivelling liberal anymore: some of these people turn out to be very sensitive souls reacting to a hostile world, most of them are extremely bright and voracious readers, some of them are friendly to a fault, kinder and more open to strangers than anyone else you've ever met. Then a group of you gets in to a confrontation that makes the news and the corporate media does its smear jobs. Now you get it.

The weirdest part is how the mischaracterization of anarchism allows the group to punch way above its weight sometimes. Oh well, learn the rules and play the game, or don't. Whatever. Only a shame to never do much of anything.

Part of the point of anarchy is that it is in fact normal behaviour aka typical average get-along human relations. As with vegan(ism), it isn't 'weird' behaviour: factory farming is weird for one example. Macho males, I'm sure would want the militarism aspect aka kill or be killed. Also, getting rid of the flowery long-winded bullshit mystical language would be useful. That's the beauty of anarchy, it should be simple to explain and understand. RIP Colin Ward.

I don't think that people would have to get into physical conflicts to get along, even though i think it's inevitable that it would happen at some point and the conflicts should not be shamed...but maybe sometimes suppressed by others concerned through whatever methods. Having physical conflict games is fun as well, i miss the days that me and my friends would box, there wasn't any macho man crap about proving who's best or whatever, it was just fun.

to me it seems like with non-hierarchical relationships, physical conflict commonly appear as an in-group out-group type thing, and THAT is the more problematic thing to talk about, accepting that there is no universal morality.

Anarchy is the behavior of "savages", i.e. normal (hunter-gatherer-permaculturist) humans. Citing examples of "long-winded bullshit mystical language" would be more useful than name-calling and demanding a ban (enforced by who?). What the Ju/'hoansi call Seeing Properly is called "mystical experience" by "civilization" because "civilization" doesn't have a clue.

do fairies and goblins (from the middle ages), and animal sacrifices (no hunter-gatherer-permaculturist societies I know of do/did this) have to do with "mystical experience"? Even Merriam-Webster does better than that.

Some have taken "God is dead" literally, and combining this translation with the anarchist maxim No God's, No Masters produces these nihilistic perspectives on the unknown. What's needed is a new translation of the Modern God for the 21st Century which acknowledges metaphorical substitutes as ritualized psychological customs to integrate collective desires,.,

"Only an entirely superficial person can see in Makhno’s bands or in the Kronstadt revolt a struggle between the abstract principles of Anarchism and “state socialism.” Actually these movements were convulsions of the peasant petty bourgeoisie which desired, of course, to liberate itself from capital but which at the same time did not consent to subordinate itself to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The petty bourgeoisie does not know concretely what it wants, and by virtue of its position cannot know. That is why it so readily covered the confusion of its demands and hopes, now with the Anarchist banner, now with the populist, now simply with the “Green.” Counterposing itself to the proletariat, it tried, flying all these banners, to turn the wheel of the revolution backwards."
Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt

or do you mean jingoistic? It depends on what version of the country you're dedicated to. I'm not sure what percentage of the industrial workers of the world have revolutionary consciousness and which don't but I think jingoism is a result of constant bombardment with nationalistic propaganda and not enough critical inquiry.

There is the love of land which develops with experience and familiarity akin to any indigenous passion, the texture of the colonial mindset blurs with time and exposure, and tends to nullify any nationalist or proto- Statist claim to sovereignty. In the end just the unique individual stands alone as the only real solitary revolutionary consciousness worth serious consideration,.,

One group of probes can be hired to kill the other off as a robber baron once said. The pez at least have a sense of belonging. Reprobate lumpen proles on the other hand are a different story. They don’t give a fuck.

but given your definition of prole, it would be desirable NOT to turn them into soldiers in a revolutionary army, but instead to not be prole...not to be a slave to capital as i believe ziggy and le_way talk about when they mention a "breaking away"

in modern times in wealthy countries there's such a blending of prole and middle class that to speak of a distinct "prole" seems like a joke to me

and eclectic so I still refer to Marx sometimes. Trying to discover a revolutionary subject in the proletariat does seem like a failed project at this point. The movie Breaking Away points to the advance of neo-liberalism and the loss of working class identity i.e. sons of Cutters aren't cutters if they've never cut stone. What they've become is precarious entrepreneurs responsible for their own valorisation and subjectivity. So in effect they did break away from a false consciousness of working class identity into the abject freedom of liberated desire. Endnotes #4 has an excellent history and critique of the labor movement if anyone's interested.

the proletarian of the 18th-20th never had an identity of "working class" until marx and other academics told them so, and when "they" broke away from that for the insanely stupid entrepreneurialism that is so common now, it wasn't their choice, it was just more academics and capitalists telling them what to do, "spend your life making money off your one true passion!"...there is no "liberated desire" there is just desire that changes very frequently. Part of the appeal of the parallel between stirner and eastern spirituality is not to treat anything as sacred and impermanent, even desire...

Yeah, i don't have any solutions for what the modern person should do with themselves, i even have trouble deciding what to do with myself. The anti-identifier logic of stirnerism was never meant to be some group of people freeing an "oppressed other".

Stirner represents an analysis of submission not oppression he’s telling you about power and interest and giving a very provisional analysis of what to do in the face of it all. The eastern connection is indeed there.

are hierarchical in nature based on utility and disutility, the context of the word is what matters. Retard has basically become a quantitatively used pejorative not unlike idiot or moron(a word which began within a mental psychological context)

There existed a line at the time between the petit bourgeois and the working peasant akin slightly to the separation between working class and blue-collar, subtle yet distinct. These days they are the majority under the Idpol liberal doctrine.,.

podcast to listen because Brett tries to break it down for newbies. Is RLR anarchist? Sometimes it is. The idea of the show is DIY too. Would it be useful for @News Podcast to have guests on the show regarding a discussion of TOTW? Just a quick discussion on everyday life decision making relating to the TOTW if possible. Autobiographies and biographies are interesting as they give an insight into how the person lived: by following what they believed in and/or what they wrote about. It's all well and good writing down ideas etc but how can these be lived day to day? I know @news covers this from time to time, don't get me wrong. For example, RLR shouts out "Workers of the world unite!" Yes, by all downing tools via a global organised one day demonstration would be my expression of workers uniting. Some will say, dream on.

i would feel sorry for anyone who resolves to "just be an anarchist", how limiting that would be, might as well just pitch your tent in the woods and reject all of society all the time, which is clearly fine for some but obviously nobody here is willing to do that.

Mental health and being an anarchist,has any person ever written pieces on this? With services being not anarchist-led and/or the people who deliver such services being necessarily anarchist-minded, how do anarchists in need of mental health services 'resolve' this? For example, being anarchist and working 9-5 (to survive) impacted my health due to the differences, too many to list here: trying to live in two different worlds. Then, being referred to mental health services. What do I say? Should I tell them I'm an anarchist? What will happen next? My 'confession' will be 'on record!' what will that mean? Will services be 'sympathetic?' Will they understand? Will they try and 'correct' me? I wanted to let it all out: all that anarchist knowledge, tell them they were being duped, to wake up etc. Luckily, was I lucky or was I being prejudiced as I have been provided with the time to articulate my hatred of unjust hierarchy etc and my hatred of civilisation. It's one thing talking this over to an anarchist friend but to discuss it face-to-face with 'the paid enemy' is proving to be cathartic. I'm part of a detailed discussion with someone who has somewhat opposing views and who is welcolmed by the dominant mind-set. I do feel like I am in 'the lair of the beast' discussing this and will I be 'in trouble' for opening up? I mean, there no specialist mental health services specialising in 'anarchy syndrome' as they dominant would surely have it described. How have others experienced trying to live two lives? Have you ended up crashing and being put before 'the enemy' and then do your best at informing them who you really are and how you believe we can never be truely open under such dominance as authoritarian hierarchy? So, I try to explain the anarchy is normal, not scary; it is The State that is scary. I believe, as anarchists, we need to discuss with 'others' over-arching theory of anarchy and yes, explain why symbols of oppression (such as banks and chain stores) are attacked, highlighting not people).